Save us from a wave of narcissistic podcasts: Megan, Kim and now Gwyneth have two

Celebrity culture has always been associated with glamour. Tabloid culture was dominated by staged paparazzi photos and stories about “party girls”. However, in the last decade there has been a shift towards health. Now celebrities are trying to present themselves as culturally involved figures whose coolness is rooted in intelligence rather than brilliance. On the one hand, it might just be sharing the books you’ve read, but for some, it’s taken to a whole new level: starting a podcast.

Once primarily an outlet for nerds and news outlets, podcasts have now become the personal venture of many millennial celebrities. In October, Kim Kardashian entered the true crime podcast arena. System: Case of Kevin Keithan eight-part series about a triple murder conviction in 1994. Gwyneth Paltrow announced it would launch in mid-November. Goop hunting with Audible in January, a “compilation” of podcast episodes focusing on “Fun, Healing, Beauty and Change” (this is in addition to their current series, Podcast Gup).

A series of interviews with Meghan Markle, archetypes — part of the $25 million (£21 million) Spotify deal she and Prince Harry revealed — began in late August. And on November 1, supermodel Emily Ratajkowski launched a three times a week series, High low with EmRataCelebrity interviews and “marry something high and low” discussions, with the third episode of each week only available to paying subscribers.

On the face of it, this trend signals a time when celebrities are taking themselves and modern life more seriously. Despite their decent subject matter, from sex to politics to race, these podcasts mostly do little more than serve branding for the benefit of their hosts. Instead of creating something intellectually stimulating, or at least stimulating in any way, we are left with a set of selfish considerations whose value is hard to determine. This is podcasting for the sake of podcasting.

Podcasts vary in quality, but the common thread running through all of them is, at best, a clear goal to promote their host’s brand, and at worst, complete deafness to their topics.

As an example of the former, Kardashian’s podcast clearly helps solidify her transformation from reality TV star to aspiring lawyer and criminal justice activist. While Ratajkowski comes one year after the publication of her collection of essays, My body, which aimed to portray her as a political writer. It was a bestseller in the US, but critics (myself included) lambasted it as “repetitive and shortsighted”.

Celebrity branding exercises are certainly not new. Many of them could lead to something compelling, or at least entertaining, but these podcasts are excruciatingly boring and essentially cliché-based.

Ratajkowski, in particular, draws heavily on discussions about feminism and politics that have been part of the mainstream for almost a decade (such as sex positivity and anti-capitalism), while she and her guests often use the refrain, something, oh than they say, “it is.” important.” She also presents her podcast’s theme as unique and taboo-breaking, despite the UK podcast having the exact same premise and nearly the same title (High Low), which has been covering these topics for almost four years, regularly tops the UK podcast charts and only ended in 2020.

Superficiality aside, the podcast is trying to portray Ratajkowski – the $8m (£6.6m) celebrity – as something of a ‘common man’: last week she did a thought-provoking episode about inflation and the tricks of the trade. rising spending around Thanksgiving.

Ultimately, there is a belief that creating a podcast is enough in itself to transcend quality or popularity—that just by creating a podcast, you have to be a high-minded and/or meaningful woman. As author Rachel Connolly recently noted:[there is] this trend at the moment for people (especially very high-profile people) to portray themselves as frivolous, as well as culturally and politically distinctive… At some point in the recent past, the role of “someone who understands ‘important'” was abandoned as well.

It also happens outside of celebrities, such as in the publishing world. Podcasts are often released alongside new non-fiction books on topics commonly referred to as “zeitgeist” or “fashion”. Some popular examples are business influencer Grace Beverly. Hard work, little work Podcast, interviews with entrepreneurs about performance and Pandora Sykes’s Do It Righta series of interviews on “Myths, Fears and Trends in Modern Life” (both named after her books of the same name, due out in 2021 and 2020 respectively).

While these podcasts have more value than the celebrity versions and are clear marketing ploy, they still point to the widely held perception of what podcasting signals: hosting a podcast is a guaranteed way to improve a reputation or product, as well as acquired prestige (and sales). ) exceed the cost of production and advertising.

While most of these celebrity podcasts are clearly not of great intellectual value, it can be argued that they provide at least some form of entertainment. However, most of them are extremely boring, even when it comes to inherently spicy topics like sex or shame. They skillfully balance the stalemate between complexity and intrigue, somehow missing the line between content and fun.

So who are these podcasts for? Listener numbers are hard to come by, but they rarely make it into the top 100 charts (even among celebrities on the top list). It doesn’t seem to change attitudes towards these women or attract a huge new audience to them. Few answers but to serve the egos of their masters.

While this trend is largely rooted in the demographics of wealthy white women, it’s worth noting that many male podcasters have been creating their own versions over the years – with far more objective success. podcast like CEO diary, organized by entrepreneurs and dragon nest Investor Stephen Bartlett and intentionally hosted by health influencer Jay Shetty regularly tops the national charts and attracts a cult following, attracting millions of listeners per episode and playing a major role in making their hosts household names. These podcasts are equal parts lackluster, nonsensical, and self-righteous—if nothing more—but the goal of boosting their host’s credibility has clearly been achieved.

This may be part of the explanation for the abundance of women’s podcasts – their experience with misogyny and sexism has likely blunted their success. It is understandable that they will try to do something deeper and more meaningful than their male counterparts and will be disappointed when they fail.

But this is a trap that hides how low the bar has become. No matter what the production value, how worthy the topic is, or how famous the celebrity is, we must remember that these podcasts are pure vanity: they signal to the world how the host should be treated, while at the same time acknowledging their lack of content. open up in the process.